About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN 9
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the first administration's foreign policy and hillary clinton's tenure at state and i think the defining external event to the administration of foreign policy has been the arab spring, obviously, and all that uncorked and how to manage that. but before we get to that, we still have robin on satellite. i want to talk about the relationship between the president and hillary clinton and the degree to which the legacy of foreign policy in the first term has been hillary clinton's legacy and the degree to which it really has been -- the shots have been called from the white house because a lot of reporting on this has been very interesting. tonight there's going to be an interview on "60 minutes" that's a joint interview between the president and hillary clinton, a joint exit interview, and this is what the president had to say about hillary clinton's legacy. >> hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had. it has been a great collaboration over the last four years. i'm going to miss her. i wish she was sticking around. but she has logged in so many miles i can't b
of a foreign service officer. learning about foreign-policy around the dinner table each night to this service in combat -- his service in combat in vietnam. less well known is the story of this foreign policy work inside dissonant. -- the senate. his 90 overseas trips that he made in 28 years on foreign relations committee, his work to ensure free elections in the philippines, his work with aids in africa, his work as chairman of the new start treaty and his very public and successful diplomatic intervention in afghanistan, pakistan, and sudan. historians will judged his senate years on his impact on foreign policy much the same way so many people recognized ted kennedy's impact on domestic policy. from his many years in the u.s. senate, he has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or governments, but also people. i once asked john why he loves the senate. he said it is the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. for three years now, he has been working quietly to help a father from massachusetts, whose two sons were kidnapped and taken to
. >> i don't know. >> when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blonder i blunds country since vietnam were you correct or incorrect, yes, or no? >> my reference to the surge being dangerous -- >> the question is were you right or wrong. that is a pretty straightforward question. i would leak the answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. >> why do you think that the iranian foreign ministry is strongly supports your nomination to be secretary of defense? >> i have a difficult enough time with american politics and senator i have no idea. >> do you think it is appropriate for the chief civilian leader of the u.s. military forces to agree with the statement that both the perception, quote and the reality is that the united states is, jet the world's bully. >> the didn't hear her say that by the way the united states. and i think my comment was it is irdevelop rant in good observation -- irdevelop rant and good observation. i don't think i said that i agree with it. >> as of this a
, political stability. >> earlier, we spoke with a foreign policy spokesman, one of angela merkel christian democrats, and we asked about what international security had to do with energy policy. >> country and a new chance for them because they would be a major decrease of the prices for energy in america. because of the shale gas and crude oil debate, this would change the geopolitical situation also in the middle east because not any longer setting arabia will be the field station for america. maybe this will change in 10 or 15 years. this is part of this conference. m staying with the energy sector, a u.s. oil giant, exxon mobil's, has posted 2012 earnings just shy of $45 billion. yes, that was billion. the second highest ever for a publicly held company, despite slight declines in its oil and gas business, the company improve its bottom line by about 6% compared to 2011. strong performance from exxon's refinery division helped drive the growth. the $45 billion mark is just a couple hundred million dollars shy of the all-time record set back in 2008 by -- you guessed it -- exxon. better
think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since the vietnam. if it is carried out, i will resist it." the question continued on for months and months talking about what a disaster the surge would be even when it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march 2008, you said "the term quagmires could apply. some reject that term, but if that is not a quagmire, what is? even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview with the "financial times" -- you said i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president obama. do you stand by those comments? >> senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? where you write in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history to assert -- to sort that out. >> the committee deserves to know whether you are right or wrong about the search. >> i will explain why -- >> i want to know if you are right or wrong. it's a direct question. >> the surge assisted in the objective. >> will you please answer the questi
with cutbacks to the u.s. stockpile as a means to draw russia into negotiations, foreign policy magazine reported, ahead of the unannounced discussions. the house subcommittee chairman mike rogers asks if they have assurances as to what is going on there. i would note that last year's defense authorization villepin -- bill calls for briefings on his discussions to the congress, the servant -- the armed services committee and subcommittee. it does not less than twice each year, the president or his designee will brief the committee on foreign relations and the committee on armed services about the dialogue between the u.s. and the russian federation on issues of limits or controls of nuclear arms, missile defense system, and long-range conventional strike systems. the deadline for that would be march 2 this year. my first question to you, if confirmed, will you honor that request as part of the mdaa? >> the request for the briefing? >> yes, the requirements for the briefing. will you keep congress advise on any discussions dealing with national defense and dialogue with russia on national
with the mainstream of u.s. foreign and defense policy and also with president obama. chuck hagel believes we must preserve the american strength as a force for good in the world. he recognizing that protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends, as well as strong american leadership. third, chuck has the depth of experience and leadership skills required to handle this tough job. there is no shortage of security challenges around the world, as this committee knows and as you enumerated this morning, mr. chairman. a very large and impressive group of former cabinet officials and public servants from both sides of the aisle have said that they trust chuck hagel with this important responsibility. and i strongly, i strongly agree. fourth, on the fiscal side, i am will be athat chauck powerful advocate for a common- sense approach in this administration and on capitol hill regarding fiscal challenges to the defense budget. he understands that our defense capabilities are being threatened on two budget friends. first, sequestration, with its damaging, across the board, up from the budget
a nominee tries to disavow his past positions on virtually every foreign policy issues all at the same time it raises serious questions. >> if hagel is confirmed by a strict party vote, how will it affect his relationship with republicans in congress? >> it sticks that he went from being a loyal republican to somebody who frankly took a differently point of view. he didn't endorse president obama, but he traveled with him and now prepared to be his secretary of defense. they kind of recent the fact that they think he is going to the other side. that said when he is in the pentagon and controls the military in that capacity, they will have to deal with him and have the same interest in common. both parties want to keep the u.s. strong and safe and chuck hagel has been through worse. believe me, he has seen much more incoming than at that hearing. >> republican strategist, good to see you. thank you. >> good to see you. >> still ahead on the saturday afternoon, the latest on the scandal around the top u.s. senator. first, on this date, an announcement that led to the moment so many had been c
correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to the surge being the most dangerous -- >> answer the question, senator hagel. the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. i would like you to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today. >> the records show that you refuse to answer that question. now please go ahead. >> well, if you would like me to explain why -- >> i actually would like an answer. yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that. as i've already said, my answer is i'll defer that judgment to history. >> i think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it. >> willie, that actually went on much longer. >> it was awkward. >> than that, and it was badgering. it sort of reminded me
? will you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the surge being -- >> the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straight forward question. >> well -- >> i would like to answer whether you are right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i am not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things. >> let the record show you refuse to answer that question. now, please go ahead. >> well, if you would like me to explain why i -- >> i absolutely would like answer answer. yes or no. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that. >> is this finally the year for immigration reform? president obama sits down with jose diaz bullart. >> i don't think that it should take many, many months. i think this is something that we should be able to get done certainly this year, and i would like to see if we can get it done sooner. >> in newtown parents of the young victims
are the most impressive and smartest of all our foreign policy thinkers. and so i made that comment not too long ago, and someone said how could that be? why would the military guys be smarter? i said, well, if for no other reason, the same reason secretary gates gave the speech that he gave out in kansas on a lecture or series two months ago when he devoted his speech to the congress and the united states putting more resources in the state department, more resources in diplomacy, more resources in soft power. because he understands as secretary of defense or anyone who wears the uniform is burden is now on our soldiers. and we have overloaded the circuits. of we've asked our military to damn near do everything. well, we should never, ever put the military in that position. not only are they not capable of doing everything, they can't. they're human. and so consequently, we're seeing a great deterioration in the quality of our army and the marines, we're doing great damage to our fort structure. and i talk about that in the book. but soft power, how do we use all the instruments of our gov
the fundamental direction that is we should take in regards to foreign policy in iraq, but also the personal element there. i think people always forget a lot of this stuff is personal, and it seemed in the tone of mccain's questions it was personal. >> it does seem that, and, of course, there was the fact that hagel did not endorse barack obama, but in the middle of that mccain-obama campaign he went to the war zones along side barack obama. it was an implicit endorsement. his wife did endorse obama in that campaign. politics are personal. jim, there's some concern by some that assuming that chuck hagel gets confirmed he will be a weaker secretary of defense within the cabinet, that policy will be run even more so out of the white house, out of the nsc because he has gone through this process, and doesn't have a strong political base himself within the administration. >> well, you know, that was the rap against william cohen. if you remember, a republican who served under the president -- democratic administration of president clinton. now, if people here in the building say, look, you know
of a foreign-policy think tank. at his confirmation hearing today, he had some back and forth with former colleagues, including senator john mccain. that exchange is about an hour and a half into the hearing. later, we will get your thoughts about the nomination and hearing on our phone lines at 11:00 p.m. eastern, 8:00 pacific. carl levin chairs the armed services committee and makes the opening statement. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has done to get bills enacted, his leadership on a host of issues, his support for the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings likely. -- lively. senator inhofe has shown his strong commitmen
night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam if it is carried out. i will resist it. and you talk about what disaster the search would become even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. in 2008, you said you hear the term quagmire, which could apply. if that is not a quagmire, then what is approved even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview -- 2011 -- in an interview with the financial times, you said i disagreed with the president, president obama, his decision on iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq. do you stand by those comments? >> i stand by them because i made them. i will explain why. >> i want to know if you bore right or wrong. >> the search assisted in the objective, but if we review their record -- >> will you please into the question. where you correct when he said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since the a number of words you incorrect or correct? >> my reference -- and not argue not answering the question? the question was argue right
. >> cenk: will it have ramifications for israel's foreign policies especially with iran. >> the whole region is in turmoil, as we know. so the challenges to israel and to the entire mildews is front and center and will be on the agenda. these elections were in a strange way about coalition of israel. >> cenk: help me make sense of them. israel must at least get rid of the palestinians and put a frequence between us. how do you read that. >> i can't vouch for the quote but there is a desire and consensus to create a two-state solution, two states for two peoples. that consensus has been enduring for several years now and any israeli government will reflect that in the call political politically and officially is to reenter negotiations discussing and reinstating two-states. >> cenk: quote, it may be true that the humane thing is to remove the roadblocks and checkpoints, to stop the occupation immediately to, enable the palestinians freedom of movement of the territories and to tear down the bloody inhumane wall, to promise human rights to every individual. it's just that i will end up
agree with those for bipartisan national leaders in the area of national security and foreign policy? >> yes. >> i wanted to take a few minutes to talk about some of the things we talked about in my office and some people are saying here she goes. the audit ability of the defense department. i know you want to hold people accountable. i don't think most americans realize as we face shrinking budgets and want to secure the pre-eminence of our military and not hollow out the spending at the defense department, that auditability is crucial. can you reassure me that auditability needs to happen no later than 2017? can you make a commitment that will be a priority, making sure as secretary panetta did at secretary gates did, that that's going to be an essential priority? >> as i told you, senator, i will make that commitment to this committee. >> then turning to contracting i have yet to have provided to me other than raw numbers we spent any data that indicates any major infrastructure rebuilding as part of a counterinsurgency works. there are many things that work in a counterinsurgency
opponent, now thinks he is wrong, especially about this comment. >> the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam if it's carried out. >> were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to the surge being a dangerous -- >> are you refusing to answer, mr. hagel? >> well, i am not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things. >> so you refuse to answer that question. >> watching this tension, even outright scorn, you'd never know these two men were once the closest of friends and political allies n fact, when mccain ran for president in 2000 ark voter asked who he would want in his cabinet. listen to mccain's answer. >> as far as secretary of defense is concerned, there's a lot of people that could do that. one of them i think is senator chuck hagel could do that kind of job. >> reporter: that's right. the same man mccain lit into 13 years later in a confirmation hearing for the same post in president obama's administration. but they once had a bond even tighter than senate colleagues. a shared experience in vietnam. in fact, they were so c
also to develop a foreign policy that reflects, again, the dynamics of the region as they really are today. lastly, i think this is an opportunity for the committee to finally do the work that it should have been doing for years. when you read the record and realize we have never done an authorization of the state department in the six years i have been here, we have never looked at how foreign aid has been spent. we have never done a top to bottom review. it is something people like you come to this position, look at as something that is healthy. there was mention of cost. i was disappointed with the arb when the first thing that came out of the mouths of people i respect was money, money, money. this committee would have no idea whether the appropriate amount of money is being spent or if that could have prevented what was happening -- what happened because we have never had an authorization. i want to close again by thanking you for your service, thanking you for your friendship, thanking you for your transparency, and i certainly look forward to your testimony. i know it will
and millions of people around the world, you have left a profoundly positive mark on american foreign policy, and you have done enormous but for all of us and for the country we served. we will miss you deeply, but none of us -- [applause] but none of us will ever forget your extraordinary leadership, and each of us will always be deeply proud to say that we served in hillary clinton's state department. [cheers and applause] and so now it's my great honor to introduce one last time, the 67 the secretary of state of the united states for america, hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] >> oh. thank you. thank you. oh. well, just, all of you, the people i have been honored to serve and lead and work with over the last four years, is an incredible experience. when i came in to this building as secretary of state four years ago, and received such a warm welcome, i knew there was something really special about this place, and that having the honor to lead at the state department and usaid would be unique and singular, exciting and challenging. it has been all of those things and so much mor
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)